Do you judge how good something is based on how you enjoy it, even if the overall product is rather impressive? For example, The Beatles obviously knew how to play their instruments, but I just cannot enjoy their music. So would I be entitled to say they suck? Not just about The Beatles, about anything. If a picture obviously took a lot of work to make but isn't pleasing to look at can you call it terrible? If a video game has many things to do and revolutionary concepts, if it is just not fun to play can it be called garbage?

I've been wondering this for a while. I always though it was weird when people say "I don't like this band, but they're good". I mean, isn't the main point of a product to enjoy it? If I don't enjoy something, I don't really think I can say that it is good and high-quality, even if it does show signs of hard work and creativity? What do you think?

Sunny

07-22-2008, 05:43 PM

you can acknowledge something is well-crafted even though it's not "your thing". like, i can tell excellent blue cheese from shitty blue cheese, but i would never purchase or eat blue cheese unless my life depended on it.

you can be aware of something's high value even if it has no value to you personally... ya know?

Rooster

07-22-2008, 05:48 PM

Well, for me the enjoyment is not the main factor for judging about the quality of music, if it affects anything at all. Just look at some DIY punk-rock stuff (i won't name any bands, because there are so many). The production quality is usually very shitty, but i still enjoy those bans's music if the songs are good. The main factors for me are (not in any particular order):

I find music from many bands very well made (excellent production etc.) but i just can't enjoy it. So i think that enjoyment is not the main factor for judging quality of the music (if it is a factor at all), and also that not any well crafted music is enjoyable for me.

Zebulon

07-22-2008, 06:47 PM

you can acknowledge something is well-crafted even though it's not "your thing". like, i can tell excellent blue cheese from shitty blue cheese, but i would never purchase or eat blue cheese unless my life depended on it.

you can be aware of something's high value even if it has no value to you personally... ya know?

But what if you had to give a single word or numberical rating about it's quality? Even if the blue cheese looked fresh, well prepared and clean you would not give it a very good recommendation because of the horrid taste...would you?

Zebulon

07-22-2008, 06:48 PM

Well, for me the enjoyment is not the main factor for judging about the quality of music, if it affects anything at all. Just look at some DIY punk-rock stuff (i won't name any bands, because there are so many). The production quality is usually very shitty, but i still enjoy those bans's music if the songs are good. The main factors for me are (not in any particular order):

I find music from many bands very well made (excellent production etc.) but i just can't enjoy it. So i think that enjoyment is not the main factor for judging quality of the music (if it is a factor at all), and also that not any well crafted music is enjoyable for me.

Like I said, I'm talking about the main quality, like if you had a choice between good or bad. Crappy production standards can still amount to well-written and enjoyable music (The Offspring's Ignition for example). And the lyrics, vocals and guitars have to be enjoyable to be good, yes? You're not going to appreacite a poem if it's not enjoyable to read, a voice if it's not enjoyable to hear. See what I'm saying?

Sunny

07-22-2008, 06:58 PM

But what if you had to give a single word or numberical rating about it's quality? Even if the blue cheese looked fresh, well prepared and clean you would not give it a very good recommendation because of the horrid taste...would you?

well, we'd have to establish whether you'd want me to give an objective rating or not. in terms of my personal and subjective enjoyment of the cheese, i'd rate it a -50 on a 1-10 scale, of course. but in terms of objective "goodness" (freshness, flavor in relation to what it should be, texture) i'd rate it according to its actual quality.

WebDudette

07-23-2008, 02:47 AM

I commonly admit to whether or not I think a band it talented. Something along the lines of 'I feel Tool are pretentious (for no good reason) and actually pretty boring, but they are talented.'

I can also admit when something I generally enjoy is crappy. 'Yeah, 300 was a entertaining movie but it was so basic and one dimensional. I will probably never watch it again.'

Hmm... neither of those came out exactly as I intended. Oh well.

Vera

07-23-2008, 03:37 AM

Similarly, I know some of my favourite movies are not genuinely good but cheesy, so-bad-it's-good sort of films.

On the other hand, I don't think there's a thing called objective evaluation of something that is largely a matter of taste. You either like something or you don't - you may understand the justification for the differing view ("I like this but it has flaws" or "I dislike this but it has its merits, too") but it's impossible to give an objective view because your view is always subjective.

Then again, it's possible to give a more educated view than somebody else's. For example, a food critic may know enough about preparing food and restaurants to evaluate a good restaurant. He may hate shrimp while I love it, but I can still rely on his view of the restaurant based on his expertise.

But like, take films for example. I may say, "this film was well-made but didn't affect me so I didn't like it much". Now, how well can this film be made if it had zero emotional effect on me? If it didn't move me, make me interested in its characters and their story? If it didn't shock me, teach me something new or even entertain me much? Obviously something was wrong with the film. The acting, direction, photography etc might be good at face value but there is something lacking in my personal experience in the movie, so I would struggle to recommend it to others. Is it fair on my part to assume that others might enjoy it? Why would they react differently from me? On the other hand, why wouldn't they react differently?

But I digress. I think it's fair to rate something that somebody put a lot of effort into as something terrible. I mean, okay, that sucks for the makers but honestly, that's life. I remember writing a story and honing it for months, rewriting and editing it endlessly and then putting it online. I got comments like "needs more editing", "you could hone this some more.." and other constructive criticism. I thought it was so unfair (I was 14 at this time) and I told them that, I put so much effort into this story and they say it needs more work! Did they not know much more work I'd already put into it?

But that's just it. If somebody put a lot of effort to it, and the product is good (or should I say, the product is liked by people), it will be appreciated. If the product isn't, too bad, it's not going to be, and it might receive some very harsh criticism. If you make something and put it out there, you just have to get used to it.

Rooster

07-23-2008, 11:54 AM

Like I said, I'm talking about the main quality, like if you had a choice between good or bad. Crappy production standards can still amount to well-written and enjoyable music (The Offspring's Ignition for example). And the lyrics, vocals and guitars have to be enjoyable to be good, yes? You're not going to appreacite a poem if it's not enjoyable to read, a voice if it's not enjoyable to hear. See what I'm saying?

I get your point here. Just like you i find many artists as the quality ones, but i still don't enjoy them. If i call them "shitty bands" i don't call them like that based on the quality of their music, but based on how much i enjoy their music style.